Families see a subtle, lasting shift in values
(Page 4 of 4)
Sept. 11 also made working at home more acceptable in companies affected by the destruction, possibly setting an example for others. "It was like the [1989] earthquake in San Francisco," Ms. Galinsky says. "Working at home was no longer just something for mothers who wanted to be home with kids, but something that helped businesses."
Where do employees and employers go from here?
Hewlett sees this as a fork in the road, a time "very ripe" for workers to make new requests.
"We could turn this recession into a window of opportunity, to have many more part-time career options," she says. Instead of firing people, companies could reduce their wage costs by giving employees a chance to work a four-day week.
When France created a 35-hour workweek, Hewlett explains, the purpose was to spread the work around, not to be family-friendly. The plan has drawn "amazing support from mothers and fathers who are newly able to balance their lives."
For another group of Americans - poor families - talk about balancing lives and reordering priorities remains an elitist fantasy, far removed from their daily struggle to afford food and rent.
The events of Sept. 11 have made it more difficult to focus on the needs of low-income families and poor children, says Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund in Washington. She notes that the tragedy has deflected attention away from preexisting problems of poverty, homelessness, and the need for more child care.
As the economy weakens, child advocates across the country express concern about the effects of state budget cuts on low-income working families. Lois Salisbury, president of Children Now, an advocacy group in Sacramento, Calif., points to cuts in child-care subsidies and after-school care. California Gov. Gray Davis has also postponed plans to expand health coverage for poor parents.
"For children to bear the brunt of an economic downturn is especially shortsighted," Ms. Salisbury says.
Policymakers, Mrs. Edelman adds, must ask a crucial question: What are the nation's real priorities? Insisting that the current challenge can produce "wonderful opportunities," she says, "This is the richest nation. These are not money issues. These are values issues."
When the subject is values, parents offer other perspectives. Arnold emphasizes the need to focus on the quality of family life, rather than simply on the quantity of things to be done.
"For a long time, Jeff and I were lulled into the mentality of checking off items on the to-do list," she says. "We felt, well, we're young, we have young kids, we'll have time later to do those things." Now they try to emphasize the present.
Galinsky shares that philosophy. Sept. 11, she says, has made people focus on living now rather than always for tomorrow. She hopes that attitude will not go away.
Hewlett, for one, expects it to stay. "The hubris of the '90s is really history," she says. She calls consumerism "part of yesterday's values," while today's values are more likely to focus on the hearth than on the mall.
"Maybe we do understand that less is more," she says. "We may be prepared to give up some income, to deal quite happily with new levels of insecurity because we understand it's such a privilege to have your family intact."
For the Joneses, too, the emphasis is on intangibles. Echoing the comments of other parents across the country, Jones says, "We realize that certain things don't matter. You can sell your possessions. I don't want to sound pious or altruistic, but as long as we're alive and healthy, that's truly the biggest blessing."
